Anna May Say Pa
It is estimated that over 30,000 young Burmese women have crossed the borders into
Thailand and China to fi nd work. Many end up in the sex trade in the border towns and
big cities like Chiangmai, Bangkok, Hunan and Kunming.1 These young women are in
search of work to support their families back home. Their labors are essential for the
survival of their families.
Geographical boundary crossings are not the only types of boundaries Burmese women
have to cross. For the sake of life in its fullness, self identity and community, they have
been crossing religious, cultural and economic boundaries. Girls growing up in traditional
Burmese Buddhist homes or in ethnic minority communities are inculturated from
childhood to be submissive and subservient to the men and elders. A well-known educator
and writer, Mi Mi Khaing, notes:
Although the women of Burma fi gure actively and have the same rights as men in
the fi elds of business, property and professions of the modern world, we always
keep alive in us the religious feeling that we are below “mankind.” It is not so much
a feeling that women are a lower race as that the man has the nobility of manhood
in him. We call it hpon, the glory, the holiness of a man, and we respect this not
with subservience but with the same feelings we respect monks and parents.2
The proverbs of Burma also delineate women’s place in the hierarchy and acquiesce to a
culture of violence against women:
The son as lord, the husband as god.
The voice of women never reaches beyond the gate.
As the topknot follows the head,
The wife follows the husband.
The sun rises with the crowing of the rooster
But never at the clucking of the hen.
The buffalo and the woman,
The more you beat them the better they work.
In Burmese society, then, the lives of women are circumscribed within the bounds of house
and compound. Public spaces where decision-making is done are not open to them.
To these Burmese young women, what is the word from the Bible? Can we fi nd any
liberating good news that will empower them for their struggle for dignity and selfhood?
I would like the Burmese women to listen to the voices of two women from the Bible,
speaking from societies very similar to their own.
Introducing Ruth and Justa3
Ruth and Justa are two foreign women, one a Moabite and the other a Canaanite or Syro-
Phoenician, whose lives are entwined in the message of the Bible. Both cross boundaries
and take risks for the sake of life. One seeks life, specifi cally, security in marriage for
herself and for her mother-in-law and the other healing for her suffering daughter. Their
strivings are not for themselves as such, but for a much-loved person. In both cases the
objects of their concern are women. Both stories emphasize feminine bonding and
solidarity.
Both women appear in the biblical narratives without any male protector, which was
uncommon in a patriarchal society. Usually, women were under the protection of father,
husband or a male relative. But these women are alone, totally dependent on themselves
to fi nd solutions to their problems. Both women must face male protagonists to demand
answers to their diffi culties. The power to grant their wishes lies in male hands. They are
both submissive before the male playing out the accepted and traditional position and
status of women. Yet, their actions and words belie this subordination. Their daring and
assertiveness go beyond the boundary of socially and culturally acceptable feminine
behavior and win them their desires.
Apart from these similarities, there are differences. The story of Ruth is found in the book
bearing her name, only one of two books bearing women’s names in the Bible, the other
being the book of Esther. Ruth lived in the period when judges ruled Israel (12th – 11th
BCE). As the Deuteronomic historian is quick to point out: “In those days there were no
kings in Israel” (Jud.19:1; 21:25a). She is identifi ed as a Moabite several times as if to
emphasize her foreign status (Ruth 1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10). The family background of
Ruth is known: wife of Mahlon, daughter-in-law of Elimelech and Naomi, and sister-inlaw
of Chilion and Orpah (Ruth 1: 3-5). Two near kinsmen are mentioned – one is Boaz
and the other is unnamed (Ruth 2:1, 20; 3:9, 12; 4:1).
No such information is forthcoming about Justa. The only relative who is mentioned is
her sick daughter. Justa’s story is part of the narratives concerning Jesus, the rabbi and
prophet from Galilee (1st CE) about whom the people are buzzing. The encounter with
Jesus takes place in the region of Tyre and is recorded in two versions, Mark 7:24-30 and
Matthew 15:21-28. In this paper, I will concentrate on the Matthean version. Whereas
Ruth is described as meeting twice with Boaz, the male protagonist, Justa faces Jesus only
once.
Ruth the Moabitess and Boaz the Worthy
Ruth is a woman of Moab, married to a Judean, Mahlon, whose family had left their
hometown of Bethlehem in Judah because of famine. Mahlon’s father, Elimelech had died,
leaving behind his wife Naomi and two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. Like Mahlon, Chilion
had married a Moabite woman, Orpah. So even as a young girl, Ruth had chosen the
nontraditional path of marriage to a foreigner. Even if mixed marriages are not banned,
they are frowned upon in most societies. Ruth and Orpah, married to refugees from Judah,
must have faced prejudice and discrimination. Their childless marriages must have been
seen as a curse. Unfortunately, the two men die, leaving the three widows in their grief
and struggle.
When news came that the famine in Judah had ended, Naomi decided to leave for home.
Her advice to her daughters-in-law was to go back to their families and people and fi nd
security in marriage (Ruth 1:8, 9). Orpah followed Naomi’s advice and left for her home.
Ruth decided to throw in her lot and her future with Naomi:
Do not press me to leave you or turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge;
your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
Where you die I will die – there will I be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well,
if even death parts me from you.
Ruth 1:16-17 (NRSV)
This is a radical commitment made by one woman to another. This text is sometimes
recited as part of the marriage ceremony but where the wedding vow is, “Till death us do
part,” Ruth’s commitment to Naomi goes even beyond the grave. Ruth pledges herself to
another woman of different ethnicity, religion, age and relationship and status, a daughterin-
law to a mother-in-law, no less!
And Ruth is willing to leave her country to cross boundaries into a strange land.4 The
geographical boundary crossing entails new allegiances to a new land, a new people and
a new God. The new country for Ruth is enemy country. Moab had denied passage to
the Israelites on their journey to Canaan, and had hired Balaam to curse them (Num.
22-24). Moabite women had seduced Israelite men to apostasy (Num 25:1-2). Moab could
never be part of the covenant community (Deut. 23:3-6). As a Moabite, Ruth could face
not only the usual distrust and suspicion of foreigners but aggressive hostility. In a strange
country, as an immigrant, Ruth faces the question of identity and the challenge of
assimilation.5
Ruth has also chosen Naomi’s god as her new god. In ancient times, when gods were
identifi ed with the land which they controlled, it was customary to pay allegiance to the
god in whose land one found oneself. The general, Naaman, took back some Israelite soil
on which to worship Israel’s god (2 Kgs. 5:17). Ozick says of Ruth, “Ruth leaves Moab
because she intends to leave childish ideas behind. She is drawn to Israel because Israel
is the inheritance of the One Universal Creator.”6 The Midrash and Talmud also place
great importance on the story of Ruth’s conversion.7 She is recognized as a righteous
proselyte and depicted here as the faithful convert who has crossed the boundary into
another’s faith.
However, apart from her words of allegiance to Naomi, there are no other indications that
she forsook her god, the God of Moab. Japanese feminist scholar, Hisako Kinukawa, says:
Ruth is challenging us through her openness to other faiths and her courage to cross
the borders. She should be remembered not because she gave birth to David’s
grandfather, but for risking her own religious identity to support another woman’s
life. Her multi-religious, inclusive spirituality that loved her mother-in-law in such
a way to change her faith identity should not be overlooked as we read the story.8
Asian feminists who live in pluralistic societies where family members may be of different
faiths explore possibilities of multifaith spirituality and sharing.9
The two women had less than enthusiastic welcome when they arrived in Bethlehem. The
women had wondered, “Is this Naomi?” But the relatives on whom they could have
counted for welcome and hospitality are silent and unresponsive. Naomi herself seems
to be in the midst of despair and hopelessness, in spite of the companionship of Ruth. She
had replied to the women of Bethlehem, “Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara. The hand
of the Lord has dealt bitterly against me. I went away full. Now I return empty. It is God
who dealt calamity upon me” (1:20, 21). It must be Ruth, the foreigner, who now shoulders
the burden of fi nding food for the two women.
Ruth fi nds herself gleaning, following after the reapers. As a widow and foreigner she is
entitled to pick up the sheaves dropped by the reapers (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-22).
Israelite law provides a measure of security for foreigners, widows and orphans. And by
chance Ruth happens to glean in the fi eld of Boaz who is described as a near kinsman of
Elimelech, her father-in-law. Not only that, Boaz is described as a man of wealth, a pillar
of society and so a very worthy man indeed. This very well-to-do relative has heard of
the exploits of Ruth, praises her and says a blessing, “May the Lord bless you for your
deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose
wings (kanap) you have come for refuge!” (2:12).
Earlier, Ruth in Moab had pledged allegiance to Naomi, Naomi’s God and Naomi’s people
(Ruth 1:15-17). The words of approbation uttered by Boaz, affi rms Ruth’s commitment to
Naomi and to the God of Israel.
Although Ruth has taken on the traditional male role of bread winner, as a female, widowed,
foreign and alone, she faces the dangers of sexual harassment and rape. Aware of these
dangers, Boaz suggests that she should only glean in his fi elds and keep close to his young
women. He has ordered his young men not to bother her (Ruth 2:8, 9). Naomi herself
reiterates this advice to stick close to Boaz’s young women (Ruth 2: 22). It was not safe to
be a woman in a man’s world.
Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing Floor
The crucial confrontation between Ruth and Boaz takes place at the threshing fl oor at the
end of harvest (Ruth 3). Although Boaz had been kind and had shown favor to Ruth in
the fi elds, the grain gathered could not solve the problem of security and a permanent
home for the two widows. A plan was needed to secure their future.
Naomi now puts forward an audacious plan. Boaz would be sleeping at the threshing
fl oor that night. Ruth was to make herself attractive, observe where Boaz lay down after
an evening of eating and drinking, uncover his feet and lie down beside him. This was a
sexually provocative act as the term “feet” is a euphemism for a man’s private parts (Ex.
4:25; Isa. 7:20) and to uncover the feet has connotations of revealing nakedness for sexual
purposes (Deut. 27:20; Isa 47:1-3). The threshing fl oor itself is associated with sexual
licentiousness (Hos. 9:1b). Thus, it would seem as if Naomi is asking Ruth to go beyond
the boundaries of accepted female behavior and to act out the stereotype of the strange
woman who leads on Israelite men (cf. Gen. 39:17-18; Num. 25:1).
Ruth’s reply, “All that you say I will do,” is a consequence of her loyalty and commitment
to Naomi. As Trible states, “Loyalty to self and to mother-in-law signifi es for Ruth a
movement from dissent to perseverance to consent.”10 This answer has been problematic
for Asian feminists. The submission of Ruth to her mother-in-law is clearly not liberating.
Kuo Siu May points out that as “kind and considerate to her daughter-in-law as Naomi is
made out to be, she made all the arrangements (for Ruth’s marriage to the middle-aged
Boaz) without her leave. Her (Ruth’s) submission, at best, is negative in nature.”11 Probably
for Naomi and Ruth in their circumstance, from among the available options, marriage to
Boaz would probably seem like the best one.
Ruth does everything that Naomi tells her to do. She observes the place where Boaz is
lying and when he is asleep, uncovers his legs and lies down beside him. By her action,
Ruth moves into what is essentially male territory. She initiates the meeting and will
propose to Boaz. For Kwok, Ruth’s act challenges Boaz to move beyond boundaries.
“Washed, perfumed, and dressed in her fi nest clothes, Ruth wakes Boaz, literally and
fi guratively, challenging Boaz to leave behind his pious public respectability.”12
At midnight Boaz wakes up, startled and is amazed to fi nd someone by his side. To his
question, “Who are you,” the reply is “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Spread your skirt
(kanap) over me for you are next-of- kin.” Ruth picks up on Boaz’s word at their fi rst
meeting that she should fi nd security under God’s wing (kanap). For Sakenfeld, “Now,
Ruth in effect invites Boaz to make good on the prayer he made earlier on her behalf, by
providing some measure of the ‘full reward’ of refuge under God’s wings through his own
action, by marrying her.”13 Ruth claims Boaz as next-of-kin or redeemer and urges him
to take on this responsibility and provide economic security through marriage.
Boaz’s response to Ruth’s initiative is heartening. He invokes God’s blessing on her because
“this last instance of your loyalty (hesed) is better than the fi rst” (3:10). In the earlier meeting
between the two, although not using the term hesed, Boaz had commended Ruth’s actions
(2:11) on behalf of Naomi. These acts of hesed had involved accompanying Naomi and
providing for her by gleaning. This fi rst hesed is now surpassed by “this last instance of
your hesed” which meant coming to the threshing fl oor and proposing marriage. “Boaz is
praising Ruth for acts done in relationship, essential acts of support and caring that only
she was in a position to accomplish, acts that frequently go beyond the basic call of duty.”14
In this encounter, Ruth has taken great risks. She has crossed into space reserved for male
initiative. Yet, as a woman and a foreigner, her future is in the hands of a male. She comes
as suppliant unsure of the consequences though aware of the dangers. Boaz’s words, “do
not be afraid,” remind us forcibly of this. Ruth had opened herself up to the possibility
of rejection, physical violence, even rape. She could have been easily rebuffed by Boaz,
exploited her vulnerability or shamed her before the community for her brazenness.
Boaz’s actions reveal his decency and daring. His agreement to marry Ruth risks ridicule,
censure and perhaps even ostracism. The marriage of the leading citizen to the foreign
widow describes an event “in which the marginalized person has dared to insist upon full
participation, in which the one in the center has reached out beyond societal norms to
include the marginalized.”15
Ruth the Moabite is called “a woman of worth” (Ruth 3:11) by Boaz. She has done what
“nice women” are advised not to do. After the birth of her son which ensures her place
in the house and lineage of Boaz, the women of the community praise her to Naomi, “for
your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is more than seven sons has borne him” (4:15).
It is estimated that over 30,000 young Burmese women have crossed the borders into
Thailand and China to fi nd work. Many end up in the sex trade in the border towns and
big cities like Chiangmai, Bangkok, Hunan and Kunming.1 These young women are in
search of work to support their families back home. Their labors are essential for the
survival of their families.
Geographical boundary crossings are not the only types of boundaries Burmese women
have to cross. For the sake of life in its fullness, self identity and community, they have
been crossing religious, cultural and economic boundaries. Girls growing up in traditional
Burmese Buddhist homes or in ethnic minority communities are inculturated from
childhood to be submissive and subservient to the men and elders. A well-known educator
and writer, Mi Mi Khaing, notes:
Although the women of Burma fi gure actively and have the same rights as men in
the fi elds of business, property and professions of the modern world, we always
keep alive in us the religious feeling that we are below “mankind.” It is not so much
a feeling that women are a lower race as that the man has the nobility of manhood
in him. We call it hpon, the glory, the holiness of a man, and we respect this not
with subservience but with the same feelings we respect monks and parents.2
The proverbs of Burma also delineate women’s place in the hierarchy and acquiesce to a
culture of violence against women:
The son as lord, the husband as god.
The voice of women never reaches beyond the gate.
As the topknot follows the head,
The wife follows the husband.
The sun rises with the crowing of the rooster
But never at the clucking of the hen.
The buffalo and the woman,
The more you beat them the better they work.
In Burmese society, then, the lives of women are circumscribed within the bounds of house
and compound. Public spaces where decision-making is done are not open to them.
To these Burmese young women, what is the word from the Bible? Can we fi nd any
liberating good news that will empower them for their struggle for dignity and selfhood?
I would like the Burmese women to listen to the voices of two women from the Bible,
speaking from societies very similar to their own.
Introducing Ruth and Justa3
Ruth and Justa are two foreign women, one a Moabite and the other a Canaanite or Syro-
Phoenician, whose lives are entwined in the message of the Bible. Both cross boundaries
and take risks for the sake of life. One seeks life, specifi cally, security in marriage for
herself and for her mother-in-law and the other healing for her suffering daughter. Their
strivings are not for themselves as such, but for a much-loved person. In both cases the
objects of their concern are women. Both stories emphasize feminine bonding and
solidarity.
Both women appear in the biblical narratives without any male protector, which was
uncommon in a patriarchal society. Usually, women were under the protection of father,
husband or a male relative. But these women are alone, totally dependent on themselves
to fi nd solutions to their problems. Both women must face male protagonists to demand
answers to their diffi culties. The power to grant their wishes lies in male hands. They are
both submissive before the male playing out the accepted and traditional position and
status of women. Yet, their actions and words belie this subordination. Their daring and
assertiveness go beyond the boundary of socially and culturally acceptable feminine
behavior and win them their desires.
Apart from these similarities, there are differences. The story of Ruth is found in the book
bearing her name, only one of two books bearing women’s names in the Bible, the other
being the book of Esther. Ruth lived in the period when judges ruled Israel (12th – 11th
BCE). As the Deuteronomic historian is quick to point out: “In those days there were no
kings in Israel” (Jud.19:1; 21:25a). She is identifi ed as a Moabite several times as if to
emphasize her foreign status (Ruth 1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10). The family background of
Ruth is known: wife of Mahlon, daughter-in-law of Elimelech and Naomi, and sister-inlaw
of Chilion and Orpah (Ruth 1: 3-5). Two near kinsmen are mentioned – one is Boaz
and the other is unnamed (Ruth 2:1, 20; 3:9, 12; 4:1).
No such information is forthcoming about Justa. The only relative who is mentioned is
her sick daughter. Justa’s story is part of the narratives concerning Jesus, the rabbi and
prophet from Galilee (1st CE) about whom the people are buzzing. The encounter with
Jesus takes place in the region of Tyre and is recorded in two versions, Mark 7:24-30 and
Matthew 15:21-28. In this paper, I will concentrate on the Matthean version. Whereas
Ruth is described as meeting twice with Boaz, the male protagonist, Justa faces Jesus only
once.
Ruth the Moabitess and Boaz the Worthy
Ruth is a woman of Moab, married to a Judean, Mahlon, whose family had left their
hometown of Bethlehem in Judah because of famine. Mahlon’s father, Elimelech had died,
leaving behind his wife Naomi and two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. Like Mahlon, Chilion
had married a Moabite woman, Orpah. So even as a young girl, Ruth had chosen the
nontraditional path of marriage to a foreigner. Even if mixed marriages are not banned,
they are frowned upon in most societies. Ruth and Orpah, married to refugees from Judah,
must have faced prejudice and discrimination. Their childless marriages must have been
seen as a curse. Unfortunately, the two men die, leaving the three widows in their grief
and struggle.
When news came that the famine in Judah had ended, Naomi decided to leave for home.
Her advice to her daughters-in-law was to go back to their families and people and fi nd
security in marriage (Ruth 1:8, 9). Orpah followed Naomi’s advice and left for her home.
Ruth decided to throw in her lot and her future with Naomi:
Do not press me to leave you or turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge;
your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
Where you die I will die – there will I be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well,
if even death parts me from you.
Ruth 1:16-17 (NRSV)
This is a radical commitment made by one woman to another. This text is sometimes
recited as part of the marriage ceremony but where the wedding vow is, “Till death us do
part,” Ruth’s commitment to Naomi goes even beyond the grave. Ruth pledges herself to
another woman of different ethnicity, religion, age and relationship and status, a daughterin-
law to a mother-in-law, no less!
And Ruth is willing to leave her country to cross boundaries into a strange land.4 The
geographical boundary crossing entails new allegiances to a new land, a new people and
a new God. The new country for Ruth is enemy country. Moab had denied passage to
the Israelites on their journey to Canaan, and had hired Balaam to curse them (Num.
22-24). Moabite women had seduced Israelite men to apostasy (Num 25:1-2). Moab could
never be part of the covenant community (Deut. 23:3-6). As a Moabite, Ruth could face
not only the usual distrust and suspicion of foreigners but aggressive hostility. In a strange
country, as an immigrant, Ruth faces the question of identity and the challenge of
assimilation.5
Ruth has also chosen Naomi’s god as her new god. In ancient times, when gods were
identifi ed with the land which they controlled, it was customary to pay allegiance to the
god in whose land one found oneself. The general, Naaman, took back some Israelite soil
on which to worship Israel’s god (2 Kgs. 5:17). Ozick says of Ruth, “Ruth leaves Moab
because she intends to leave childish ideas behind. She is drawn to Israel because Israel
is the inheritance of the One Universal Creator.”6 The Midrash and Talmud also place
great importance on the story of Ruth’s conversion.7 She is recognized as a righteous
proselyte and depicted here as the faithful convert who has crossed the boundary into
another’s faith.
However, apart from her words of allegiance to Naomi, there are no other indications that
she forsook her god, the God of Moab. Japanese feminist scholar, Hisako Kinukawa, says:
Ruth is challenging us through her openness to other faiths and her courage to cross
the borders. She should be remembered not because she gave birth to David’s
grandfather, but for risking her own religious identity to support another woman’s
life. Her multi-religious, inclusive spirituality that loved her mother-in-law in such
a way to change her faith identity should not be overlooked as we read the story.8
Asian feminists who live in pluralistic societies where family members may be of different
faiths explore possibilities of multifaith spirituality and sharing.9
The two women had less than enthusiastic welcome when they arrived in Bethlehem. The
women had wondered, “Is this Naomi?” But the relatives on whom they could have
counted for welcome and hospitality are silent and unresponsive. Naomi herself seems
to be in the midst of despair and hopelessness, in spite of the companionship of Ruth. She
had replied to the women of Bethlehem, “Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara. The hand
of the Lord has dealt bitterly against me. I went away full. Now I return empty. It is God
who dealt calamity upon me” (1:20, 21). It must be Ruth, the foreigner, who now shoulders
the burden of fi nding food for the two women.
Ruth fi nds herself gleaning, following after the reapers. As a widow and foreigner she is
entitled to pick up the sheaves dropped by the reapers (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-22).
Israelite law provides a measure of security for foreigners, widows and orphans. And by
chance Ruth happens to glean in the fi eld of Boaz who is described as a near kinsman of
Elimelech, her father-in-law. Not only that, Boaz is described as a man of wealth, a pillar
of society and so a very worthy man indeed. This very well-to-do relative has heard of
the exploits of Ruth, praises her and says a blessing, “May the Lord bless you for your
deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose
wings (kanap) you have come for refuge!” (2:12).
Earlier, Ruth in Moab had pledged allegiance to Naomi, Naomi’s God and Naomi’s people
(Ruth 1:15-17). The words of approbation uttered by Boaz, affi rms Ruth’s commitment to
Naomi and to the God of Israel.
Although Ruth has taken on the traditional male role of bread winner, as a female, widowed,
foreign and alone, she faces the dangers of sexual harassment and rape. Aware of these
dangers, Boaz suggests that she should only glean in his fi elds and keep close to his young
women. He has ordered his young men not to bother her (Ruth 2:8, 9). Naomi herself
reiterates this advice to stick close to Boaz’s young women (Ruth 2: 22). It was not safe to
be a woman in a man’s world.
Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing Floor
The crucial confrontation between Ruth and Boaz takes place at the threshing fl oor at the
end of harvest (Ruth 3). Although Boaz had been kind and had shown favor to Ruth in
the fi elds, the grain gathered could not solve the problem of security and a permanent
home for the two widows. A plan was needed to secure their future.
Naomi now puts forward an audacious plan. Boaz would be sleeping at the threshing
fl oor that night. Ruth was to make herself attractive, observe where Boaz lay down after
an evening of eating and drinking, uncover his feet and lie down beside him. This was a
sexually provocative act as the term “feet” is a euphemism for a man’s private parts (Ex.
4:25; Isa. 7:20) and to uncover the feet has connotations of revealing nakedness for sexual
purposes (Deut. 27:20; Isa 47:1-3). The threshing fl oor itself is associated with sexual
licentiousness (Hos. 9:1b). Thus, it would seem as if Naomi is asking Ruth to go beyond
the boundaries of accepted female behavior and to act out the stereotype of the strange
woman who leads on Israelite men (cf. Gen. 39:17-18; Num. 25:1).
Ruth’s reply, “All that you say I will do,” is a consequence of her loyalty and commitment
to Naomi. As Trible states, “Loyalty to self and to mother-in-law signifi es for Ruth a
movement from dissent to perseverance to consent.”10 This answer has been problematic
for Asian feminists. The submission of Ruth to her mother-in-law is clearly not liberating.
Kuo Siu May points out that as “kind and considerate to her daughter-in-law as Naomi is
made out to be, she made all the arrangements (for Ruth’s marriage to the middle-aged
Boaz) without her leave. Her (Ruth’s) submission, at best, is negative in nature.”11 Probably
for Naomi and Ruth in their circumstance, from among the available options, marriage to
Boaz would probably seem like the best one.
Ruth does everything that Naomi tells her to do. She observes the place where Boaz is
lying and when he is asleep, uncovers his legs and lies down beside him. By her action,
Ruth moves into what is essentially male territory. She initiates the meeting and will
propose to Boaz. For Kwok, Ruth’s act challenges Boaz to move beyond boundaries.
“Washed, perfumed, and dressed in her fi nest clothes, Ruth wakes Boaz, literally and
fi guratively, challenging Boaz to leave behind his pious public respectability.”12
At midnight Boaz wakes up, startled and is amazed to fi nd someone by his side. To his
question, “Who are you,” the reply is “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Spread your skirt
(kanap) over me for you are next-of- kin.” Ruth picks up on Boaz’s word at their fi rst
meeting that she should fi nd security under God’s wing (kanap). For Sakenfeld, “Now,
Ruth in effect invites Boaz to make good on the prayer he made earlier on her behalf, by
providing some measure of the ‘full reward’ of refuge under God’s wings through his own
action, by marrying her.”13 Ruth claims Boaz as next-of-kin or redeemer and urges him
to take on this responsibility and provide economic security through marriage.
Boaz’s response to Ruth’s initiative is heartening. He invokes God’s blessing on her because
“this last instance of your loyalty (hesed) is better than the fi rst” (3:10). In the earlier meeting
between the two, although not using the term hesed, Boaz had commended Ruth’s actions
(2:11) on behalf of Naomi. These acts of hesed had involved accompanying Naomi and
providing for her by gleaning. This fi rst hesed is now surpassed by “this last instance of
your hesed” which meant coming to the threshing fl oor and proposing marriage. “Boaz is
praising Ruth for acts done in relationship, essential acts of support and caring that only
she was in a position to accomplish, acts that frequently go beyond the basic call of duty.”14
In this encounter, Ruth has taken great risks. She has crossed into space reserved for male
initiative. Yet, as a woman and a foreigner, her future is in the hands of a male. She comes
as suppliant unsure of the consequences though aware of the dangers. Boaz’s words, “do
not be afraid,” remind us forcibly of this. Ruth had opened herself up to the possibility
of rejection, physical violence, even rape. She could have been easily rebuffed by Boaz,
exploited her vulnerability or shamed her before the community for her brazenness.
Boaz’s actions reveal his decency and daring. His agreement to marry Ruth risks ridicule,
censure and perhaps even ostracism. The marriage of the leading citizen to the foreign
widow describes an event “in which the marginalized person has dared to insist upon full
participation, in which the one in the center has reached out beyond societal norms to
include the marginalized.”15
Ruth the Moabite is called “a woman of worth” (Ruth 3:11) by Boaz. She has done what
“nice women” are advised not to do. After the birth of her son which ensures her place
in the house and lineage of Boaz, the women of the community praise her to Naomi, “for
your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is more than seven sons has borne him” (4:15).
No comments:
Post a Comment